Healthcare, History, and Obamanomics – Healthcare

Amazed I was this past week at the legislative events on Capitol Hill, especially the prevailing attitude of the Democratic majority in the U.S. Senate regarding the controversial Senate Health Care Bill, which has seemed much less directed at pleasing a majority of the American electorate (the U.S. citizens these politicians supposedly represent) than the questionable Barack H. Obama, the only U.S. President in the history of the nation whose constitutional eligibility to be President has been successfully challenged by lawsuit in a U.S. District Court, but, subsequently, dismissed by a federal judge who obviously cared more about his political future than seeing basic justice done.Does Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid, and his cronies, actually believe that the large majority of American voters (Democrats, Republicans, and Independents) want a health care program legislated that will create, in its wake, 111 new Executive branch bureaucracies, expanding the federal government by 30 percent of its current size by the scribble of Obama’s pen? One might wonder who, among the controlling Democrats in the Senate and House of Representatives, really cares about the constitutional way the Framers of the American republic intended for the nation to be perpetuated in accordance with limited government. You really don’t have to be a bombastic Republican zealot, but, rather, a reasonable person, in order to detect the obvious economic flaws in the Democratic Party’s spendthrift approach to healthcare.Historically, it’s really sort of like the way the 16th Amendment to the U.S. Constitution was imposed upon the nation. You know, the one that allowed the creation of the federal income tax and all other, subsequent, state income taxes? By all valid historical accounts, and simple common sense, I believe that it is proper to say that the infamous amendment was ratified without the genuine approval of a majority of the U.S. electorate. For what citizen, in her right mind, would have favored an un-apportioned federal tax imposed on a citizen’s income?Well, until 1913, there was not a federal income tax, and the American nation had done pretty well up to that time in financing federal government with a consistently balanced budget using apportioned taxes. Un-apportioned federal and state taxation on the personal income of U.S. citizens was considered a blatant heresy, and was forbidden by the Founding Fathers in the U.S. Constitution. That’s why an illicit amendment had to be subtly crafted and imposed on the republic during the second decade of the 20th Century by a few powerful federal politicians and private bankers, through sheer Machiavellian chicanery, in order to make it, supposedly, lawful for the federal government to tax the American people by any means available. This was, basically, a pragmatic methodology to implement a secretly contrived agenda for the American republic to have an unlimited, but flawed, credit system in order to provide financial resources to assume an imperialistic Romanesque position in world affairs.It took money, money, and more money, and a skyrocketing national debt, to incrementally erect over the ensuing decades the most feared offensive nuclear/conventional military on the earth. This involved the bribery and intimidation of unwilling nations into abiding by U.S. foreign policy through covert intelligence operations (effected by the paramilitary CIA and DIA)), and putting in place complex domestic computer/satellite surveillance operations in association with the private-sector telecommunications industry, which has been occurring since 1948.The Federal Reserve System, and the 16th Amendment, were both imposed upon the American republic in 1913, and legislatively linked together to form the awful bases for eventual control over the American economy by an elite combination of powerful bankers and corporate capitalists. The origins of both dire entities are comprehensively presented with immaculate documentation in G. Edward Griffin’s tome, “The Creature from Jekyll Island,” which every American should read and study. According to the history of Western civilization, expanded knowledge of historical fact among any electorate produces an empowering of the People to change things for the better.If a healthcare system is to be established for the well-being of all needy uninsured American citizens, it should be legally done by the will of the fifty U.S. states and territories in accordance with the 10th Amendment to the U.S. Constitution. The federal government has no real power to supplant the authority of the several States by establishing a federal-run health care system, with powers not delegated expressly to the federal government by the U.S. Constitution. On the other hand, a medical system already in operation, which, by necessity, has been approved by the several states (such as the U.S. Veterans Healthcare System) could be easily expanded in scope, state-by-state, to provide all of the uninsured American citizens in the 50 states, territories, and possessions with good medical care according to the funding provided by the states and the federal government. This would in no way proscribe private healthcare plans from prospering. In fact, competition among the states in establishing the best-managed public healthcare would create jobs for physicians, pharmacists, medical technicians, engineers, architects, and construction workers.Currently, only less than 30 percent of all of the 20+ million eligible American Veterans use the 250 existing VA medical centers throughout the nation. Expanding the VA system by building new medical centers in the various states would allow all veterans and non-veteran American citizens to have access to good healthcare. If, perchance, employed American non-veterans, capable of affording private healthcare, would opt to use such a public facility, they would be required to pay a share of cost for the services and medicines rendered to them. Working, tax paying American citizens unable to afford private healthcare would be automatically eligible to receive public medical assistance, without charge. What should be publicly regulated, state-by-state, is the pharmaceutical industry so that all medicines and prescription drugs are easily accessible for the general public, and that no one gets wealthy off of the development of life-saving drugs. As such state supported university laboratories should be adequately funded to research new drugsIn sum, I believe that it is entirely better to suffer in liberty the consequences of human choice within a republic, being the lifestyle derived of personal volition, either, adverse or pleasant, than to have good health served up on a silver platter at the expense and burden of decadent dictatorial government. The sage Henry David Thoreau wisely wrote in his “Essay on Civil Disobedience,” “that government is best that governs least,” and while the citizen unschooled in constitutional law might think that the federal government has legitimate power to dictatorially impose upon the people what the Framers reserved only to the States, such exercise of power is deceitful and totally without law and merit.